Precisely. And in your dismissal of RichieC's statistic, you were attempting to set "us" apart from those who have found themselves the subject of American intervention.

There is in implication there that the Irish ought be less concerned about American military or foreign policy intervention because it does not adversely concern Ireland (nor any band of nations with which you feel we might identify).

If one feels that each US military operation is a justified, creditable operation, then one may easily excuse such an extensive history of intervention the basis of repeatedly extraordinary circumstances.

If, on the other hand, one feels that the statistics (war every 1.3 years) are not in the USA's favour, and that such extensive history of unavoidable military operations is statistically improbable, then the notion that 'we' ought not be concerned becomes troublesome.

The only reason I imagine anyone might employ such an argument is because he or she feels that 'we' are lucky enough to be out of the firing line. I'm not sure that's an argument most people would be comfortable with.

Hypocrytical of whom? Why must the West or the US not look after its own interests on the international stage? Given how rife hypocrisy is at every level of government and in pretty much every international action it is a pretty weak shield for Iran to hold up against what, ultimatly, is the fear of nuclear holocaust.

Hi Sam, I have been reading over your replies to other poster's some of what you are saying make sense and in some instances I would agree with some of it. Apologies for cherry picking certain replies from certain posts you have made which is what Im doing

Every nation on Earth has the right to look after their own interests I dont think you will find many people who will argue against it. From my own point of view its the method by which this is achieved that counts - countries do not have the right to lie, cheat, steal, kill and maim to achieve or look after their own interests they have no right to do that as was the case in Iraq which I seen you have already pointed out you were against Im not leveling that at you just using it as an example. Fear of a nuclear holocaust is back to the realm of pre-empting something that hasnt happened this is not a legitamate reason to attack another country and potentially trigger a much wider conflict that could affect all of us not just the nations directly involved.

That is attributing guilt before the alleged crime has even been committed which is ludicrous in the extreme and quite frankly nonsense. Perhaps there is a case for sanctions against Iran but as history has shown us what follows after the sanctions is war and that is the path we are threading. With regard to the sanctions it is the ordinary person on the street who suffer the most, 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration and as history has proven they were wrong about the WMD in Iraq. Israel is a nation with a vast a nuclear arsenal should their enemies not be fearing a nuclear holocaust??? considering they have plenty of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them in a first and second strike capacity?...

Quote:

My position on America's wars is that I dont think looking at the history of a country (especially one as long as the states) and saying it is more "dangerous" than another nation based purely on this statistic has any validity. It has much much more to do with geography, economics but most of all (and this is the catch for the last 20 years) ABILITY than on any "danger" that its about to strike out at everyone for no reason. It tells you very little about the "danger" of a state in a general sense, you could no doubt name 200 countries vastly more "dangerous" to its citizens than the US is to them or its own.

Im not to sure if you are referring to a long or short history with regard to the States. For a country with such a short history of existance they sure as hell have been involved in a lot of wars and will continue to do so as a result of their sole super-power status. Perhaps "dangerous" is the wrong phrase that is used. Statistically the US are the "most likely nation to either start a war or be involved in a war" the figures dont lie. Saying the have no "validity" - replacing the phrase "dangerous" with "most likely nation to either start a war or be involved in a war" is disingenuous.

Claiming US war efforts or justifying them because of geography, economics and ability is just plain wrong - I think the words you are looking for are - regional hegomy ( wherever that might be), greed and an appetite for destruction. Saying that 200 more countries may be vastly more dangerous to its own citizens than the US may well be true but a couple of points if I may - there arent 200 countries in the world if we go by UN estimates although I accept the angle you are getting at Im just pointing that out. Certain countries may well be more dangerous domestically but unlike the US with their vast military might and interventionist doctrine they are no where near as dangerous to the wider world at large as the US is they just arent. And therein is the issue.

Quote:

One thing that makes a nation more "dangerous", without a shadow, is an extremly strong martyr culture. You wont have to look further than Iran for one of those

When a country like for example the US is prepared to send its men and women into illegal unfounded wars and kill the idigenous population is that not a form of de-facto martyrsm? Sending people to their graves intentionally as a result of lies and greed??

Quote:

I dont think you could argue that the US should be a mediator or facilitator at the expense of being able to defend its own national interests. Especially when it is so clearly threatened, Iran's rhetoric does little to allay any american fears, all indications they seem to give is how they "would if they could" to both the US and Israel. The fact they are too weak to act upon their wishes, as is the case in the Arab world (according to polls) does not impress me as much as it seems to other people here.

Nations have to defend their national Interests all the time why is it that US when feeling threatened resort to the bomb? Plenty of nations around the world resort to politics and dialogue to resolve issues - the US sanction and bomb nations when they want something or "perceive" a threat. Im just wondering what you mean by "would if the could"??.. If by that you mean the Iranians would use a nuclear weapon against either of those nations I fail to see how you can say this with such certainty when a) they dont have the bomb b) by all accounts have no intention of building a bomb and c) no human being I know of has yet to develop an ability to peer into the future. Iran is many things but to claim they are weak is a misconception. Study the Iran - Iraq war when the Iraqis were backed by the West they maybe many things but the Iranians are not weak. They have a vast array of ballistic missiles and if they wanted to could reek havoc on Israel and US interests in the middle east without a nuclear bomb. Yet they havent.

Quote:

That people hold the US to a standard that no other country is held to is again not a reason that they cant legitimatly oppose the aquiring of a nuclear weapon by a state that is near constantly declaring it it's enemy. If Iran is unwilling to allow nuclear inspectors to confirm the claims they make purely because Bush put them in a list that amounts to little more than a rhetorical device then their unreasonablness should be clear to everyone.

We dont know that Iran is attempting to make a bomb we dont know this yet people keep claiming it. They hold up Iranian rhetoric as an indication of upcmoing doom. Yet when Iran is labeled in the axis of evil and demonised you yourself claim it is nothing more than a "rhetorical device"? So when Iran speaks out its to be taken literally when the West threatens its a "rhetorical device". Im not sure the Iranians would perceive this as such.

Quote:

Well if you wish to disregard international law and merely argue that "everyone has a right to defend themselves with the actions they feel necessary" then what if Israel feels that to defend themselves a pre emptive strike is called for? Or a nuclear strike of their own? Who becomes the ultimate arbiter - the people of Ireland? Hardly. Either you argue rules should be followed or you dont, to argue that Iran can do what it wishes when it feels threatened you must then accept that others can do what they feel is necessary. Hardly an argument anyone wants to see played out for real.

Leaving nuclear prolifieration aside which in my opinion no sane person should agree with Im sure you feel the same, Israel has no right to quote international law when they refuse to recognise it and adhere to it how can they possibly expect to be taken seriously. They refuse to disclose their own nuclear weapons yet trumpet Law and IAEA reports of said weapons and expect the wider world to agree with them. If they want to have the law on their side disclose their own weapons its quite simple. As a non-signatory with a nuclear arsenal they have no recourse to the law making any preemptive strike on the basis of self defence illegal.

Baring a UN resolution which will never happen Israel have two methods by which an attack against Iran would be legal.

1) If Israel suffers an armed attack at the hands of the Iranian government
2) under the anticipatory self defense doctrine

1 isnt going to happen which leaves 2.To invoke anticipatory self defense, Israel must show that the use of force by Iran is so imminent that only force would thwart such an attack its called imminent necessity. Israel has pointed to Iran's nuclear program and anti-Israeli rhetoric, this is insufficient to establish imminent necessity. If this were the legal standard, Iran would be perfectly justified in attacking Israel due to Israel's nuclear capabilities (which are not merely suspected) and aggressive anti-Iranian rhetoric. The fact that Israel does not like Iran or that it views it as a rogue state or even suspects it is up to something is not sufficient to justify Israeli military action against Iran unless directly attacked. This is international law and its why an unprovoked Israeli attack will be illegal they have no right to pre-emptively attack on their "suspicions" which is where we are as things stand.

Precisely. And in your dismissal of RichieC's statistic, you were attempting to set "us" apart from those who have found themselves the subject of American intervention.

We are apart from them. Or did I miss something?

Are you implying the pronoun "us" should be used to describe everybody else in the world other than US citizens when talking about American foreign policy?

Very inspiring and a great show of solidarity, Im sure, but needlesly confusing given the context of the forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by later12

There is in implication there that the Irish ought be less concerned about American military or foreign policy intervention because it does not adversely concern Ireland (nor any band of nations with which you feel we might identify).

I hardly think its a revelation that Irish people would or should be more "concerned" if the US were to directly threaten Ireland. The idea that they would not be is ludicrous. Im not entirelly sure what your point is, or if you even have one.

This may come as a shock to you, but in 2003 the Irish government did not react as if the US had declared war on our republic. Nor did it leap to the aid of the Iraqi people. For all intents and purposes we acted like American intervention in Iraq did not adversly concern Ireland, and therefore we were less concerned than were we ourselves in the firing line.

It was extraordinary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by later12

If one feels that each US military operation is a justified, creditable operation, then one may easily excuse such an extensive history of intervention the basis of repeatedly extraordinary circumstances.

If, on the other hand, one feels that the statistics (war every 1.3 years) are not in the USA's favour, and that such extensive history of unavoidable military operations is statistically improbable, then the notion that 'we' ought not be concerned becomes troublesome.

Yes foreign policy,internal politics, economics geography, relative power and circumstances can explain much more about the "danger" a nation poses to "us" than Richie's zero sum, simplistic statement about the amount of wars fought in the last 250 years.

You disagree? Not a fan of complexity then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by later12

The only reason I imagine anyone might employ such an argument is because he or she feels that 'we' are lucky enough to be out of the firing line. I'm not sure that's an argument most people would be comfortable with.

Perhaps you should stick to basic comprehension of what is explicitly said, rather than infering so very much from so very little. I explained the flipancy more thoroughly to Richie in another post.

I really should have ignored this entire thing after the third paragraph analysing my particular choice of pronoun...

Every nation on Earth has the right to look after their own interests I dont think you will find many people who will argue against it. From my own point of view its the method by which this is achieved that counts - countries do not have the right to lie, cheat, steal, kill and maim to achieve or look after their own interests they have no right to do that as was the case in Iraq which I seen you have already pointed out you were against Im not leveling that at you just using it as an example. Fear of a nuclear holocaust is back to the realm of pre-empting something that hasnt happened this is not a legitamate reason to attack another country and potentially trigger a much wider conflict that could affect all of us not just the nations directly involved.

In that particular instance I was not implying it was legitimate cause for an attack, rather that it was legitimate cause for the ongoing preasure through sanctions. Its my personal opinion that an attack would merely ensure Iran seeks a bomb, and lend the regime more legitimacy in the eyes of the world and (more importantly) its own people.

Apologies if I was unclear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WakeUp

That is attributing guilt before the alleged crime has even been committed which is ludicrous in the extreme and quite frankly nonsense. Perhaps there is a case for sanctions against Iran but as history has shown us what follows after the sanctions is war and that is the path we are threading. With regard to the sanctions it is the ordinary person on the street who suffer the most, 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration and as history has proven they were wrong about the WMD in Iraq. Israel is a nation with a vast a nuclear arsenal should their enemies not be fearing a nuclear holocaust??? considering they have plenty of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them in a first and second strike capacity?...

Just to clarify that Saddam DID have WMDs up untill (I think) 1997- 1999 or there abouts. The sanctions were in place because he did not allow monitors complete access - he later confessed that he feared attack from surrounding countries should the detterent of the WMDs be revealed as completly destroyed.

The argument that only the little people suffer is very valid, but then the question is raised as to "what can/should be done" when a state (or its leadership) is acting in a fashion that threatens both its own citizens and the international system as a whole.

If a powerful state (particularly the US) chooses to ignore the issue and merely trade as if it is a normal state amoungst others (even with arms embargoes) the massive wealth created quickly becomes another support to the dictatorship in place. The mere act of doing nothing supports the status quo.

Even the act of supporting those against the opposition can often have enormous negative consequences for citizens in the unfortunate country.

Merely pointing out it is much easier to point out the flaws in a particular policy towards a "rogue" state than to think of one that is effective and targeted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WakeUp

Claiming US war efforts or justifying them because of geography, economics and ability is just plain wrong - I think the words you are looking for are - regional hegomy ( wherever that might be), greed and an appetite for destruction. Saying that 200 more countries may be vastly more dangerous to its own citizens than the US may well be true but a couple of points if I may - there arent 200 countries in the world if we go by UN estimates although I accept the angle you are getting at Im just pointing that out. Certain countries may well be more dangerous domestically but unlike the US with their vast military might and interventionist doctrine they are no where near as dangerous to the wider world at large as the US is they just arent. And therein is the issue.

I honestly tought up untill right there that there was something like 250 countries on earth I didnt even think about how massive that number is untill there. My bad.

My argument is merely that, historicaly speaking, a nations aggressivness tends to corelate much more to its power compared to those around them than it does to any inclination by its politics and people towards peace. I was merely taking issue with this insinuation throughout the thread that the Iranian regime is peace loving, as shown by its record towards war, whilst America is tyranical and war loving, again show by its own record. In my mind what it best illustrates is Americas relative dominance and Irans relative insecurity, surrounded by enemy states as it is.

Thats, obviously, opinion but it bears itself out in most historical cases that I can think of.

RichieC gave a statistic of a US war once every one year and three months throughout history. You then answered in a way that, as you admit above, sets 'us' apart from those in the firing line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichieC

The US has averaged a war every year and three months over its entire history.

183 campaign ribbons on a 236 year old countries flag....

We fear Iran?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamHarris

Yes yes, they are coming to get us next. Better go hide.

I assume when RichieC said "we fear Iran?" he meant we as human observers with a human stake in global conflicts.

However, your response seems to denote some sort of stupefaction at this sort of human concern, apparently not recognizing why an Irish person would say such a thing if not directly adversely affected him or herself. Presumably you see Ireland on a different tier in light of your reply, whose sarcasm implies we have nothing to worry about.

RichieC gave a statistic of a US war once every one year and three months throughout history. You then answered in a way that, as you admit above, sets 'us' apart from those in the firing line.

I assume when RichieC said "we fear Iran?" he meant we as human observers with a human stake in global conflicts.

However, your response seems to denote some sort of stupefaction at this sort of human concern, apparently not recognizing why an Irish person would say such a thing if not directly adversely affected him or herself. Presumably you see Ireland on a different tier in light of your reply, whose sarcasm implies we have nothing to worry about.

OR it was a recognition of them massive disstance between us and any danger made in a flippant dismissal of a point I later explained in greater detail.

But if you want to continue inferring please go ahead. Im interested in what you think it tells you about my relationship with my parents ?